Menu

What I think about the ridiculous Standford study regarding organic foods

Some of you may have heard about the new study that was just released about the nutritional differences between conventional foods and organic foods. Which by the way, I want to clarify to everyone that the study was not an actual study, it was a review of other studies. No new studies or laboratory analysis was done. You can read the study here.

Naturally, because everyone in my family knows I’m a huge advocate for pure food, over the weekend two of my family members approached me and asked me if I heard what the media was saying about organic food. I told them my feelings but it didn’t seem to really sink into their brains.

So, I felt compelled to tell you how I feel about this study and the problems I see.

Problem 1: Americans are brainwashed Most Americans are brainwashed. I think that is one of the biggest problems we face as Americans today- we simply don’t think for ourselves anymore. We rely on what we hear in the media. Most of us don’t even consider important things like who funded the study or actually taking the time and reading the studies ourselves. They feed it to us and we just take it.

Problem 2: Who is funding this study? GMO Labeling war influenceInfowars.com says,

NaturalNews and NaturalSociety have learned one of the key co-authors of the study, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an “anti-science” propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37. Not to mention, Olkin has been known to be the “chief statistical liar for Big Tobacco.”(1)

So isn’t it funny and quite peculiar that right now Standford University all of a sudden has a study coming out saying organic foods are no more nutritious than conventional foods (in my opinion, most likely GMO)? Stanford receives more secret donations than any other university in the U.S. In 2009 alone, these donations totaled well over half a billion dollars.(1)

AppetiteForProfit.com states,

“In sum, the food industry, to oppose a simple labeling law, is hiring lawyers and consultants with ties to the tobacco industry, to deploy stealth tactics such as creating front groups, digging up dirt on opponents, and spreading outright lies.

For decades the tobacco industry and its shills hid the truth by deploying its most effective weapon: manufacturing doubt about the health hazards of smoking. How many millions of Americans died as a result of Big Tobacco’s deceptive and cynical campaign? Why would we trust these same operators now?

You can hardly blame industry for calling on such shady characters. Big Food has seen the polling data showing that more than 90 percent of consumers want to see GMO foods labeled. When you don’t have the people or the truth on your side, all you have left is playing dirty.”(2)

This is the sole reason why I now, do not, under any circumstances automatically believe studies that have ties with Big Ag or Big Pharma. We do not know what happens behind closed doors and it is very easy for someone to change the research so it works in their favor. Are you one of those people who thinks that would never happen? I’m sorry to break it to you, but wake up because these types of things happen all the time. It would be ignorant to say that money does not affect these types of studies.

Let me ask you. If there was a study done (and independently funded) about GMO’s and the results came that they presented no harm to humans or the environment, would you believe it? Personally, it would be a little hard for me to believe but because it was funded independently, I would be a little more likely to believe it. Now, let me ask you this. If that same study was done but funded by Monsanto (or any other big corporation that has money tied into GMO’s) and revealed the same results. Would you believe it then? Most definitely not.

What I’m trying to get at is if a study has been funded by someone who has particular interests in the study going one way versus another, it would be extremely wise to consider who is behind closed doors. The moral of the story here is,don’t believe everything you hear.

Problem 3: Buying organic isn’t just about the nutritional aspect- it’s about using common senseWhile I’ll have to admit, organic is trendy and there are a few people out there that do it just because it’s the “thing to buy” most people do not buy organic solely because of the nutritional aspect.Many people (like myself) choose to buy organic because I use common sense. Common sense tells me if I eat this apple that has not been sprayed with pounds of toxic pesticides (that is used to kill living organisms) it is better for my health. Common sense tells me splicing the DNA of a bacterium and putting it into the DNA of an animal in a laboratory is not in any way natural (like how Monsanto is trying to get an apple that never browns or bruises to be passed and created). Common sense tells me if I choose to eat a cow that has been fed it’s natural diet of lush green grass and has been happily grazing outside in the sun on pasture for the duration of it’s life, it will be much better for my health. Common sense also tells me that if I choose to buy things that have not been heavily doused with pesticides there is less of a chance of those chemicals running off into our rivers, lakes, oceans and water supplies. You see, choosing to buy organic (or sustainably grown) isn’t just about the nutritional aspect. It’s about the good health of everything- planet, soil, water, plant, animal, human, air.

This goes back to problem number one, we do not think anymore! We’ve lost our common sense and think the only way something could be right is by hearing it from scientific studies!! Come on people, wake up! How can one keep believing what these scientific studies have to say when in a year from now they will come out with something that is completely contradicting to the previous claim??

Problem 4: The media lied to usIf you take the time and look at the hard facts you will see that the study actually concluded that exposure to chemical pesticides were significantly lower in organic foods (roughtly 30% less than conventional foods. It also concluded that exposure to “superbugs” in meat (antibiotic-resistant bacteria) was also significantly lower in organic foods (roughly a 33% risk difference). Lastly, it clearly states that “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”(3)

Oh and by the way, if you go to the bottom of the article regarding the study next to the word funding it states “none.” No funding, huh? So all these scientists just decided to volunteer themselves to do the analysis on the reviews of studies? Right, and Monsanto want’s GMOs labeled in California.

In a nutshell, when it comes to hearing these kinds of studies make sure you use your common sense and check the facts. So for now, enjoy your pure, organic food and don’t forget to vote YES on 37!

Even from a taste standpoint I feel that the study is wrong. Organic food just tastes better! Free range, pasture raised eggs have completely changed my outlook on eggs- I eat a carton a week now where before I didn't even buy them! So, for me, even if somehow organic food isn't as nutritious or isn't enough to make a difference (which I don't believe), I eat WAY more of it, multiplying the amount of nutrients I get, making me healthier. Just my two cents!